Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The article aims to describe the reasons that rest is an important part of leadership. Design/methodology/approach The benefits of rest to the organization and to the individual are explained. The article advances practical strategies that leaders can implement in their teams to replenish the energy levels within them. Findings The article details the importance of creating mandatory “no smart‐phone” times with teams; ensuring and enforcing a mandatory “no contact” practice between employees and the office while they are on vacation; finding ways to creatively praise employees who ask for time off for special family events, rather than praising those who sacrifice family events for the sake of work projects; and finding reasons, when possible, to send employees home early at random times with the mandate to relax at home. Practical implications It is explained that rest is essential to success as leaders. Leaders cannot perform at maximum efficiency 100 percent of the time. Social implications It is argued that society reveres leaders for their work ethic, but rarely for their “rest ethic”, and that a better balance between the two is needed. Originality/value The article focuses on how leaders regenerate energy after expending it.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.009 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".